Section II: Subconscious Desire and the Subversion of Function in The Surrealist Object
In this section, we will be analyzing different Surrealist objects and trying to understand some of the underlying themes that built the foundations for Surrealist Object. By studying the objects of Oppenheim, Dali and Duchamp, we see that the subversion of function was an almost universal feature of surrealist objects. Further, we see how the Surrealists, particularly Oppenheim and Dali, use associations with food and everyday objects to highlight subconscious desires and also to highlight themes of eroticism and domesticity.
While Marcel Duchamp’s ready-mades preceded the surrealist object, many of them embodied the ideals of the surrealist object. Why Not Sneeze Rose Selavy? comprises a bird-cage, a thermometer, a piece of cuttlebone, a porcelain dish and white cubes made of marble. The white cubes represent sugar cubes yet are much heavier because of the marble that they are cut out of. The contrast created by the materiality of the cube is made more evident with the inclusion of the thermometer, which is meant to highlight the difference in temperature between the cold marble and the sugar, which is not nearly as cold as the marble. This contrast, which rests in the materiality of the object, seems to hint at the bodily response to sneeze, due to the cold. This is further solidified in the title of the object, which explicitly refers to sneezing. Additionally, the materiality, especially that of the marble sugar cubes, subverts the viewer’s expectations. Since it is a cage, the viewer might feel a conscious desire to lift it but the marble cubes make the object very heavy to lift. The material pun created in Why Not Sneeze Rose Selavy was one of the trigger of the Surrealist Object for Breton (Ades, 186).
According to Breton, the simple and “more immediately disturbing” objects, such as Meret Oppenheim’s Fur Covered Cup and Saucer were most effective (Ades, 186). Oppenheim’s Fur Covered Cup and Saucer is indeed both simple and disturbing. Oppenheim merely covers a cup, saucer and spoon with fur yet she succeeds in completely subverting the traditional function of the object. Oppenheim plays on the interaction of the viewer’s senses with the object through the tactile nature of the fur. The sensation of drinking from this fur-covered cup and saucer that is invoked in the viewer’s mind is very unpleasant. The invocation of disgust undermines the traditional use of drinking from the cup and saucer.
In addition to subverting the function of the object, Oppenheim also takes an object that symbolizes the cultured English social practice of “teatime” and invokes sensuality and eroticism through the materiality of the fur that she adds to the original object (Caws, 26). Therefore, the artist succeeds in highlighting both the femininity and domesticity of the original object and sensual and erotic nature of the new object. Yet, at the same time, Oppenheim questions the ultimate fantasy of a woman being both erotic and domestic by creating an association with the unpleasant sensation of drinking from this fur covered cup and saucer.
By raising this question, Oppenheim, a female artist herself, distinguishes the Fur Covered Cup and Saucer from other Surrealist objects. Oppenheim’s My Governess also raises this question, albeit more subtly. My Governess is an object comprising a pair of shoes tied together on a plate. The plate captures the act of eating and domesticity, whereas the high-heeled shoes that are tied up allude to a woman’s femininity and to eroticism. The shoes themselves are white in color, which can be read as an allusion to the idea of purity. Yet, while Oppenheim chooses to place the shoes upside down, rather than straight up, to represent a trussed-up chicken, the image is not as aesthetically appealing as it would be if the shoes were places straight up. This object then questions the idea of domesticity and eroticism much like Fur Covered Cup and Saucer.
While Oppenheim’s fur cup is often cited as the quintessential example of a surrealist object, Dali’s Scatological Object Functioning Symbolically is an example of an object with symbolic functioning, explained in the previous section. Since objects with symbolic functioning were, in part, inspired by Giacometti’s Suspended Ball we see the ideas of limited mechanical functioning and subconscious desire behind Suspended Ball in Dali’s object. Scatological Object Functioning Symbolically comprises a wooden shoe inside which a glass of warm milk is placed. A lump of sugar, with the drawing of the shoe on it, has to be dipped into the milk. Once the cube is dipped into the milk, the viewer can see both the sugar and the image disintegrate (Dali, 425). The viewer feels an instinctive, subconscious desire to dip the sugar in the milk, yet the “mechanical functioning” of the object is limited as the sugar cube and the image of the shoe disappear soon after the viewers dips the sugar in. This is similar to the experience of the viewer with Suspended Ball where the viewer is instinctively compelled to slide the ball up and down but the string is not long enough for him to do so completely (Ibid). Yet, while the shape and form of the ball and the crescent in Giacometti’s object allude to eroticism, Dali’s object addresses eroticism through its materiality and the original objects it is comprised of – Dali uses pubic hairs and an erotic photograph to create his object.
Dali’s other objects, such as the Lobster Telephone and Buste de Femme Retrospectif, do not fall into the category of objects with symbolic functioning but they highlight the theme of subversion of function, eating and sensuality that we see in other Surrealist Objects. In Lobster Telephone, Dali completely subverts the traditional function of the telephone by replacing the receiver for the telephone with a lobster. The viewer, guided by the subconscious association of the telephone, imagines holding the lobster up to their ear and experiences the breakdown of the use-value of the telephone and, possibly, the unpleasant sensation of a lobster’s claws near their ear. At the same time, by using the lobster, a creature known for being an aphrodisiac, Dali introduces an element of erotic fantasies. Yet, this element of eroticism is undermined by the menace of discomfort or physical harm created by the object. Thus, the Lobster Telephone is object representing the subversion of function and of eroticism similar to Fur Covered Cup and Saucer by Oppenheim.
On the other hand, Dali’s Buste de Femme Retrospectif is an object with many layers of meaning that are more complex than Lobster Telephone. However, at the core of every idea presented in the object is the concept of questioning both the use value and the aesthetic value of the object. As Malt mentions in her book Obscure Objects of Desire, the porcelain bust represents the ideal of feminine beauty while the baguette symbolizes nutrition and subsistence as it represents the staple food that is common to every French citizen (Malt, 114). According to Dawn Ades, by combining the bust with the baguette, Dali labels the baguette as something aesthetic and renders it completely useless as a means for subsistence (Ibid). Further, Dali places an ink-stand on top of the baguette, which shows a scene from Millet’s famous painting Angelus. Malt argues that the ink-stand threatens to stain the bread, alluding to Dali’s fascination with both the painting and with idea of defilement (Malt, 115). Malt’s argument points to the fact that the threat of defilement of the bread in Buste de Femme Retrospectif can be read as a threat to the traditional ideas of subsistence and of aesthetic. Put differently, in the same way that the inkstand threatens to contaminate the bread, Dali’s Buste de Femme Retrospectif threatens the traditional idea of what is beautiful. This is further exaggerated in Dali’s choice to place ants on the face of the bust. While ants appear in several other works of Dali, including Un Chien Andalou, the image of the ants on the pure white bust is yet another indication of Dali’s attempt to disrupt the traditional idea of what’s aesthetically pleasing. This dichotomy of attraction and repulsion is also present in the lobster telephone – where the lobster acts as an aphrodisiac but the association of putting the lobster receiver to one’s ear is repulsive. Further, the sensation invoked by the object of the ants walking over one’s face aligns with the interplay of senses in Surrealist Objects, which is discussed in Section IV.
Studying different objects created by surrealist artists shows us that the surrealist object was emblematic of two general themes in the Surrealist movement – questioning the conventional use value and bringing forward the subconscious. In this sense, the object represents the cohesive nature of the surrealists as a group.